In the Matter of the Integration of the Bar of the Philippines

January 9, 1973
49 SCRA 22

Facts:

Republic Act No. 6397 entitled An Act Providing for the Integration of
the Philippine Bar and Appropriating Funds Therefore was passed in
September 1971, ordaining Within two years from the approval of this Act,
the Supreme Court may adopt rules of court to effect the integration of the
Philippine Bar. The Supreme Court formed a Commission on Bar
Integration and in December 1972, the Commission earnestly recommended
the integration of the bar. The Court accepted all comments on the proposed
integration.

Issues:

1. Does the Court have the power to integrate the Philippine bar?
2. Would the integration of the bar be constitutional?
3. Should the Court ordain the integration of the bar at this time?

Held:

In ruling on the issues raised, the Court first adopted the definition
given by the Commission to integration in this wise: Integration of the
Philippine Bar means the official unification of the entire lawyer population
of the Philippines. This requires membership and financial support (in
reasonable amount) of every attorney as conditions sine qua non to the
practice of law and the retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the
Supreme Court. The term Bar refers to the collectivity of all persons whose
names appear in the Roll of Attorneys. An Integrated Bar (or unified Bar)
perforce must include all lawyers.

Complete unification is not possible unless it is decreed by an entity

with power to do so: the State. Bar integration therefore, signifies the setting
up by government authority of a national organization of the legal profession
based on the recognition of the lawyer as an officer of the court.

Designed to improve the positions of the Bar as an instrumentality of

justice and the rule of law, integration fosters cohesion among lawyers, and
ensures, through their own organized action and participation, the
promotion of the objectives of the legal profession, pursuant to the principle
of maximum Bar autonomy with minimum supervision and regulation by the
Supreme Court.
 On the first issue, the Court held that it may integrate the Bar in the
exercise of its power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and
procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice of law. Indeed, the
power to integrate is an inherent part of the Courts constitutional authority
over the Bar.

The second issue hinges on the following constitutional rights: freedom

of association and of speech, as well as the nature of the dues exacted from
the lawyer, i.e., whether or not the Court thus levies a tax. The Court held:

1. Integration is not violative of freedom of association because it does

not compel a lawyer to become a member of any group of which he is not
already a member. All that it does is to provide an official national
organization for the well-defined but unorganized and incohesive group of
which every lawyer is already a member. The lawyer too is not compelled to
attend meetings, participate in activities, etc. The only compulsion is the
payment of annual dues. Assuming, however, that it does compel a lawyer to
be a member of the integrated bar, the court held that such compulsion is
justified as an exercise of the police power of the state.

2. Integration is also not violative of the freedom of speech just

because dues paid by the lawyer may be used for projects or programs, which
the lawyer opposes. To rule otherwise would make every government
exaction a free speech issue. Furthermore, the lawyer is free to voice out
his objections to positions taken by the integrated bar.

3. The dues exacted from lawyers is not in the nature of a levy but is
purely for purposes of regulation.

As to the third issue, the Court believes in the timeliness of the

integration. Survey showed in overwhelming majority of lawyers who
favored integration.